Thank you for the article entitled “City amends Westminster Animal Group and Services Contract”. Good to know.
I was wondering if your readers could get more statistics regarding the animals:
What kinds of animals were rescued in the last year: Number of dogs? Number of cats? What other animals and how many?
What kinds of rescues? Owner returned? Animal found in the community? Some specific places, like cats near the pier?
How many Animal Control officers are there, and do they work 9-5 M-F or after hours as well?
What are some of the stories you can share? A dog rescued in the ocean? A cat in a tree?
I think readers would like some more info regarding the nuts and bolts of how this contract is going after one year.
Christina Miller
Leisure World management revisited
Although I have moved out of state, I continue to keep up with Leisure World Seal Beach news. I am saddened to see no discussion about the most urgent problem to be solved.
After 40 years of professional management, eight shareholders sued the Golden Rain Foundation, the corporation that managed the 16 Mutuals. They won their lawsuit in 2008 and immediately Leisure World governance was changed. This was the time to have looked to the other large Leisure World communities for ideas about what their management structure should look like, specifically how their governing board of directors should be structured. They didn’t do this. In fact, they did nothing. They retained their 18 member Board of Directors without questioning their ability to manage the community formerly managed by a professional management company. The Board had already hired an Administrator with no professional management or HOA experience and they all busied themselves with ‘management’ of the community.
Had they done their homework in 2008 they would have discovered the following:
• Rossmoor Walnut Creek had 18 mutuals over which they created 9 districts and elected GRF Board members from each of those districts for a board of nine (9).
• Leisure World Maryland has 29 mutuals, each with its own professional property manager to manage the mutual business. The 29 mutuals elect an executive board of 4 (President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and 3 directors at large for a governing GRF Board of seven (7).
• Laguna Woods, twice the size of the other three, merged their mutuals to one and elect a GRF board of eleven (11).
Described above are just three different solutions to the governance structure that LWSB could have considered, but instead, nothing was done. The mutuals were left on their own without professional support. The 18 member GRF board of directors quickly devolved into power struggles among the 18 members. These power struggles keep the board members busy but does nothing to improve the effectiveness of community management. New shareholders move in and quickly discover the dysfunction hidden from them as new buyers. Old shareholders post complaints and suggestions on-line regarding the hot topics of the day, but never address the root of the problems: the governance model. Until the governance model is changed to a more effective model, Leisure World will continue to suffer costly mistakes again and again.
I urge the current GRF board members to put their power struggles aside and look for a more effective model for Leisure World management. This should be their first order of business.
Anne Walshe
Former LWSB resident
Poor leadership
At the city hall meeting where the budget was approved and reviewed (the meeting before July 22 meeting); they showed five year projected revenue opportunities that included the tax and it represents roughly 50% of the revenue. They also added cannabis revenue and in year 5 had Hotel (TOT). Am I understanding those revenue opportunities correctly? Adding tax is hurting the merchants and allowing city leadership to “kick the can down the road” by not developing a sustainable fiscal budget.
If I understood it correctly: 1.) They didn’t cut any “real” costs, they eliminated unfilled headcount and kept all their salaries, benefits, and pension the same, 2.) They deferred $3M in much needed maintenance/infrastructure investments in the city (that will cost more later), and 3.) They provided future years revenue opportunities for tax, cannabis, and hotel that have not been approved. I think they have created a fiscal mess and it will clearly hurt the city’s long term growth!
Why did the City Management and City Council all applaud each other and give extended compliments for their work on the budget? We are in a fiscal mess because the City Manager has made poor leadership decisions over the last five years and is unwilling to take responsibility; she chooses to champion a tax that will hurt the local merchants and hide her irresponsible fiscal discipline!
Another concerning observation is the lack of “check and balance” between SB City Council and the SB City Management. Our City Council is supposed to check the City Manager from making poor fiscal decisions with (our) city money, why were they so complimentary of each other? Our City Council should have been publicly raising serious concerns, not taking victory laps holding hands with City Management!
Thank you,
Steve Riggs
